Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006                                            Volume 3, Number 11     ...
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006                                             Volume 3, Number 11lack...
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006                                           Volume 3, Number 11the no...
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006                                           Volume 3, Number 11range ...
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006                                           Volume 3, Number 11      ...
Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006                                          Volume 3, Number 11methods...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5



Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


  1. 1. Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006 Volume 3, Number 11 Exploring The Multiple Intelligences Of Community College Students Enrolled In Online Courses Daniel Gutierrez, (E-mail:, Valencia Community College Kathleen Perri, Valencia Community College Alvin Quackenbush, Valencia Community College ABSTRACT While a plethora of research exists concerning Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI), virtually all of the research is focused on grades K-12. Few research studies on MI have been conducted with college students. The present study explores and profiles the Multiple Intelligences of community college students (N = 90) enrolled in online courses during the summer of 2006. The study is the first in a series of ongoing research that will explore MI theory among community college students. An overall profile of the students’ Multiple Intelligences are presented as well as descriptive comparisons between male and female profiles, selected majors and course type comparisons. Implications and recommendations for further MI research are also discussed.INTRODUCTION t has been more than twenty years since Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences was first introduced. Since then, a plethora of literature on multiple intelligences has followed, generating wide support for the theory (see Barrington, 2004; Gardner, 1999; Kornhaber, 2002 and Shearer, 2004 just tomention a few). Very few theories in the history of educational research have had the impact of MI (Shearer, 2004)and according to Kornhaber (2002), Gardner’s MI (1983) theory has been adopted and implemented for use in schoolsthroughout the world with diverse student populations including special needs, gifted, and juvenile delinquents. While almost a quarter of a century has passed since Gardner first introduced his theory of MultipleIntelligences (1983), apart from debates of whether or not MI theory can be applied to students in higher education(Barrington, 2004), this area has received little attention and an exiguous amount of research concerning MI theoryand tertiary education exists. Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons (1998), for example, note the scant amount ofresearch concerning multiple intelligences and higher education. In a review of the literature they state that littleresearch on MI exists which addresses college students. Additionally, our review of the literature discovered only twostudies that discussed MI and college level students or actually applied any type of statistical analysis of Gardner’sTheory, as it relates to higher education (see Kezar, 2001; Johnson & White, 2002). The fact that educators have so readily taken to MI is quite remarkable, (Kornhaber, 2002) given the absenceof information and structure to support the theory’s implementation, and as Kornhaber (2002) argues, it is reasonableto ask why educators have so readily adopted Multiple Intelligences theory. Given this void in the literature, our goalhere is to develop a series of research studies which address the lack of research in this area as it applies to collegestudents. The present study is the first in a series of studies to follow. In this paper, we provide a profile of multipleintelligences of college students enrolled in online courses and compare them across several dimensions.REVIEW OF MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES THEORY Multiple Intelligences (MI) theory was first articulated by Gardner (1983) in Frames of Mind: The Theory ofMultiple Intelligences. MI theory, as it has come to be known, postulates that a unitary concept of intelligence (g) 85
  2. 2. Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006 Volume 3, Number 11lacks the capacity to accurately assess the strength and weaknesses of individuals. This argument provides aframework for MI theory’s two major claims. First, all individuals possess some level of all the intelligencesarticulated in the theory, and second, just as we all possess different physical features, personality types and levels oftemperament, we also exhibit different profiles of multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983). Originally, Gardner first proposed seven different intelligences and later added an eighth in 1995, known asnaturalist intelligence (Gardner, 2004). Today, he continues to contemplate whether other areas of intelligence existand has written in support of a ninth, existential intelligence however, he is yet to include existential intelligence,which consists of the individual’s ability to ponder fundamental questions about life, death, and existence (Gardner,2004). Gardner’s theory claims that all humans possess multiple intelligences and just like variations that exist in ourphysical appearance, each of our intelligent profiles varies as well (Gardner, 2004). The eight areas of intelligences include: 1) linguistic, 2) logical-mathematical, 3) musical, 4) spatial, 5)bodily-kinesthetic, 6) interpersonal, 7) intrapersonal, and 8) naturalist (Gardner 1983). One of Gardner’s (1983)criticisms of how we have historically viewed intelligence is that most standard measures of intelligence primarilyprobe linguistic and logical intelligence; while others examine spatial intelligence. The remaining intelligences havealmost entirely been ignored. Below is a brief explanation of each of the eight Multiple Intelligences that we profilein the present study. Because Gardner himself (2004) indicates that he has not yet added existential intelligence, wehave excluded existential intelligence from the present study.• Linguistic intelligence involves spoken and written language. It is the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the capacity to effectively use language to express oneself. Gardner attributes high levels of linguistic intelligence to writers, poets, lawyers and speakers.• Logical-mathematical intelligence involves the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical functions, and investigate problems scientifically. It includes the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking. High levels of logical intelligence are related to accountants, statisticians, and computer programmers.• Musical intelligence involves the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns as well as the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. Gardner also claims that musical intelligence is structurally parallel to linguistic intelligence.• Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence involves the potential of using ones whole body or parts of the body to solve problems by using mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements. This includes athletes and dancers as well as mechanics, surgeons and craftspersons.• Spatial intelligence is the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas and is associated with ones’ visual capacity. Illustrators, interior decorators, architect, graphics designer, and photographers can be found in this category.• Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counselors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence.• Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate ones feelings, fears and motivations. In Gardners view it involves having an effective working model of ourselves, and to be able to use such information to regulate our lives. Counselors, planners, social workers, psychologists, writers and religious leaders are related to intrapersonal intelligence.• Naturalist intelligence deals with classification abilities or the flora and fauna of one’s environment. Biologist would be classified as naturalist as would those individuals who have the ability to recognize and identify species and subspecies.METHODOLOGY Using McKenzie’s (2005) assessment instrument of Multiple Intelligences, we surveyed students enrolled incriminal justice and speech courses (N=90) during the summer semester of 2006. Based on the lack of literature and 86
  3. 3. Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006 Volume 3, Number 11the non-solidification of existentialism as being one of the multiple intelligences, we excluded any data forexistentialism. Additional consideration was also given to the fact that existentialism is difficult to translate intocurricular activities. Next, we distributed the survey to our students via electronic mail so that our online students could completethe survey. In addition to the McKenzie instrument, we also developed a short survey that allowed us to collect basicdemographic data such as age, race/ethnicity and GPA from the students enrolled in the courses. We then askedstudents to complete the survey and results were transferred into an SPSS file for analysis. Only students enrolled inonline courses during the summer of 2006 were profiled. Finally, we collapsed each of the intelligence scores and created three levels of intelligence which includedlow, moderate and high levels of intelligence scores. Students that scored from 0 to 4 in any intelligence wereconsidered low, scores ranging from 5 to 7 were considered moderate, and scores that fell between 8 and 10 wereconsidered high. This produced a low, moderate or high range profile for each of the eight intelligences we assessed.FINDINGS A total of 105 students were initially enrolled in both the communication and criminal justice courses wesurveyed. Of the original 105 enrolled, 15 were excluded from the analysis because they failed to complete any of therequested information. They were completely inactive and withdrew or were withdrawn from the courses. The basicdemographic data collected for the remaining 90 students revealed the average age of the students was 24 year of agewith a standard deviation of 5.4 years, ranging from 17 years of age for the youngest to 41 years of age for the oldest.Regarding gender, 71 percent of the sample consisted of female students, while the remaining 29 percent were males.The racial/ethnicity breakdown of the group consisted of 72.6 percent Caucasian,10.7 percent Black, 10.7 percentHispanic/Latino and 6 percent other. Student GPA scores ranged from 1.8 to 4.0, with a mean GPA of 2.9 with astandard deviation of .56. When we examined their choice of majors, with exception of the social sciences, all of thecategories consisted of only one or two students. We therefore combined them together with all other majors. 28.4were social science majors while the remaining 71.6 made up the group of all other majors. Table 1: Overall Multiple Intelligences Profiles Multiple Intelligences (N = 90) Low Moderate High 1) Naturalist 31.1% 43.3% 25.6% 2) Musical 7.8% 54.4% 37.8% 3) Logical 13.3% 46.7% 40.0% 4) Interpersonal 26.7% 46.7% 26.7% 5) Kinesthetic 15.6% 35.6% 48.9% 6) Verbal/Linguistic 40.0% 38.9% 21.1% 7) Intrapersonal 4.4% 14.4% 81.1% 8) Visual/Spatial 22.2% 43.3% 34.4% The Multiple Intelligences assessments produced an overall profile of the percent of students that wereclassified as either having low, moderate or high levels of intelligences for each of the intelligences. Overall, themajority of students, 43.3 percent, scored in the moderate range for naturalist intelligence while 31.1 percent were inthe low range and 25.6 percent in the high range. For musical intelligence, the majority, 54.4 percent, scored in themoderate range while 7.8 percent were in the low range and 37.8 percent in the range. In terms of logical intelligence,46.7 percent were assessed with moderate levels, 13.3 percent low and 40 percent with high levels of logicalintelligence. With regards to interpersonal intelligence, 46.7 percent scored in the moderate range, while 26.7 percentfell both into the low and high range. Kinesthetically, the largest proportion of students was in the high range, 48.9percent, while 15.6 percent were low range and 35.6 percent high range. The greatest proportion of scores (40%) inthe verbal/linguistic area of intelligence was in the low range, while 38.9 percent fell into the moderate range and only21.1 percent in the high range. The greatest proportion of high level scores was in the intrapersonal intelligencecategory. 81.1 percent of the students had high levels of intrapersonal intelligence while 4.4 percent scored in the low 87
  4. 4. Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006 Volume 3, Number 11range and 14.4 percent in the moderate range. For visual/spatial intelligence, 43.3 percent were in the moderate rangewhile 22.2 percent were low and 34.4 high. When we examined Multiple Intelligences by gender, substantial differences were found between male andfemale students in all Multiple Intelligences. Males had a higher proportion of students in the high level range for fiveof the eight intelligences. This included the following: naturalist (36% v 22%), logical (44% v 39.7%), kinesthetic(60% v 46%), intrapersonal (92% v 79.4%), and visual/spatial (44% v 31.7%) intelligences. Females had a higherproportion of students in the high level range for musical (41.3% v. 32%), interpersonal (30.2% v 20%), andverbal/linguistic (25.4% v 12%). The low and moderate range proportions are indicted in table 2. Table 2: Multiple Intelligences Profiles By Gender Multiple Male Students Females Students Intelligences (N = 25) (N = 63) Low Moderate High Low Moderate High 1) Naturalist 36% 28% 36% 27% 50.8% 22.2% 2) Musical 8% 60% 32% 4.8% 54% 41.3% 3) Logical 4% 52% 44% 14.3% 46% 39.7% 4) Interpersonal 28% 52% 20% 23.8% 46% 30.2% 5) Kinesthetic 16% 24% 60% 12.7% 41.3% 46% 6) Verbal/Linguistic 44% 44% 12% 36.5% 38.1% 25.4% 7) Intrapersonal 0% 8% 92% 3.2% 17.5% 79.4% 8) Visual/Spatial 24% 32% 44% 19% 49.2% 31.7% When separated out by major, substantial differences existed between social science majors and all othermajors in five of the eight areas. Social science majors had higher proportions of students in the high level range forinterpersonal (31.6% v 23.1%), kinesthetic (52.6% v 46.2%), verbal/linguistic (26.3% v 17.3%), intrapersonal (92.1%v 73.1%), and visual/spatial (42.1% v 28.8%) intelligences. The naturalist, musical and logical multiple intelligenceshad only slight differences in these areas (see table 3). Table 3: Multiple Intelligences Profiles By Major Multiple Social Science Majors All Other Majors Intelligences (N = 25) (N = 63) Low Moderate High Low Moderate High 1) Naturalist 34.2% 39.5% 26.3% 28% 46.2% 25% 2) Musical 7.9% 52.6% 39.5% 7.7% 55.8% 36.5% 3) Logical 15.8% 44.7% 39.5% 11.5% 48.1% 40.4% 4) Interpersonal 18.4% 50% 31.6% 32.7% 44.2% 23.1% 5) Kinesthetic 13.2% 34.2% 52.6% 17.3% 36.5% 46.2% 6) Verbal/Linguistic 34.2% 39.5% 26.3% 44.2% 38.5% 17.3% 7) Intrapersonal 2.6% 5.3% 92.1% 5.8% 21.2% 73.1% 8) Visual/Spatial 26.3% 31.6% 42.1% 19.2% 51.9% 28.8% Comparing the criminal justice students to those enrolled in the communications courses, we foundsubstantial differences in the proportion of criminal justice students in the high level range in four of the eightMultiple Intelligences. These included naturalist (28.3% v 21.6%), logical (43.4% v 35.1%), kinesthetic (56.6% v37.8%) and intrapersonal (92.5% v 64.9%). While the naturalist, musical and interpersonal intelligences varied onlyslightly, the verbal/linguistic intelligence has a disproportionate amount of students in that fell into the low levelrange. Of the communication students, 51.4 percent scored in the low level of verbal/linguistic intelligence while 32.1percent of the criminal justice students scored in the low range. 88
  5. 5. Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006 Volume 3, Number 11 Table 4: Multiple Intelligences Profiles By Course Type Multiple Criminal Justice Courses Communication Courses Intelligences (N = 53) (N = 37) Low Moderate High Low Moderate High 1) Naturalist 30.2% 41.5% 28.3% 32.4% 45.9% 21.6% 2) Musical 7.5% 52.8% 39.6% 8.1% 56.8% 35.1% 3) Logical 17% 39.6% 43.4% 8.1% 56.8% 35.1% 4) Interpersonal 24.5% 47.2% 28.3% 29.7% 45.9% 24.3% 5) Kinesthetic 9.4% 34% 56.6% 24.3% 37.8% 37.8% 6) Verbal/Linguistic 32.1% 43.4% 24.5% 51.4% 32.4% 16.2% 7) Intrapersonal 3.8% 3.8% 92.5% 5.4% 29.7% 64.9% 8) Visual/Spatial 24.5% 39.6% 35.8% 18.9% 48.6% 32.4%DISCUSSION/LIMITATIONS Using an instrument developed by McKenzie (2005), we examined Multiple Intelligences of 90 studentsenrolled in criminal justice and communications classes delivered online. Scores obtained from the instrument foreach Multiple Intelligence were then grouped into three ranges, low (0-4), moderate (5-7) and high (8-10). Next, wedeveloped an MI profile of the entire sample (see table 1). We then developed an MI profile and compared studentsacross three dimensions; by gender (see table 2), major (see table 3) and course type (see table 4). The profiles consistently demonstrate two areas of multiple intelligence that produced substantial differences,intrapersonal and verbal/linguistic intelligence. Intrapersonal levels were consistently high across all dimensions.Overall, 81.1 percent of the students recorded high levels of intrapersonal intelligence. For males, it was 92 percent,social science majors, 92.1 percent, and by course type for students enrolled in criminal justice courses, 92.5 percent.For verbal/linguistic intelligence, a substantial proportion of students recorded low range scores, which include thefollowing. Overall, 40 percent of the students had low range verbal/linguistic intelligence scores. This proportionincreased when we examined the profiles across gender, majors and course type. For gender, 44 percent of the malesrecorded low range scores compared to 36.5 percent of the females. By majors, 34.2 percent of the social sciencemajors recorded low verbal/linguistic intelligence scores however; 44.2 percent of all other majors had low rangescores. The highest proportion of students that recorded low range scores in the verbal/linguistic area were thestudents enrolled in the communications classes. 51.4 percent of these students had low range verbal/linguistic scores. While the findings indicate substantial differences in student profiles of Multiple Intelligences, we cautionagainst generalizing the data across populations. First, our sample is a sample of convenience and only includes 90students enrolled in summer online courses. Next, the study only provides a descriptive analysis of the profiles for thestudents sampled. Finally, since few studies have been conducted with college students and Multiple Intelligencestheory, comparisons with other findings was problematic. One study however, conducted by Johnson and White(2002), also found a high proportion high intrapersonal intelligence scores among criminal justice students and a highproportion of low levels of verbal/linguistic scores. Considering these limitations however; the findings raise some interesting questions for further research.First, can these scores be used to predict student success? Second, can pedagogical or curriculum applications bealtered to improve success rates if we can, in fact, use these scores to predict student success? Third, are theredifferences in Multiple Intelligences between traditional students and students who prefer to take courses online?Finally, how else can educators use multiple intelligence assessments or profiles to improve education and deliverymethods in higher education? Hopefully, these and other important questions will be addressed as we continue toresearch multiple intelligences within the context of higher education. Finally, Kezar (2001) believes that MI has several implications for higher education but questions why MItheory is not more frequently included as part of the dialogue at institutions of higher learning or at nationalconferences. Among the implications Kezar (2002) has noted; access, diversity, accountability and assessment presentthe greatest implications for higher education. These could have profound impact on the admissions process, delivery 89
  6. 6. Journal of College Teaching & Learning – November 2006 Volume 3, Number 11methods that address diverse intelligences and learning needs, and finally, MI could be interwoven into assessinglearning outcomes. Given this broad range of implications, additional research on MI and higher educationpopulations should be forthcoming.REFERENCES1. Barrington, E. (2004). Teaching to student diversity in higher education: How multiple intelligence theory can help. Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, 421-434.2. Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.3. Gardner, H. (1998). Are there additional intelligences? The case for naturalist, spiritual, and existential intelligences. In J. Kane (Ed.), Education, information, and transformation (pp. 111-131). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.4. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.5. Gardner, H. (2004). A multiplicity of intelligences: In tribute to Professor Luigi Vignolo. Available at: %20REVISED.pdf6. Johnson, K. & White, J. T. (2002). The use of multiple intelligences in criminal justice education. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 13, 2, 369-386.7. Kezar, A. (2001). Theory of multiple intelligences: Implications for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 26, 2, 141-154.8. Kornhaber, M. L. (2002). Multiple intelligences: From the ivory tower to the dusty classroom - But why? Teachers College Record Volume 106, Number 1, January 2004, pp. 67–76.9. McKenzie, W. (2005). Multiple Intelligences and instructional technology. Eugene, OR: ISTE Publications.10. Shearer, B. (2004). Multiple intelligences theory after 20 years. Teachers College Record, Vo. 106, No. 1, 2- 16.11. Stage, F., Muller, P., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning-centered classrooms: What does learning theory have to say? Washington, DC. Higher Education Report Series, 26, 4. 90